4 ms·

First we invent a machine to kill, then someone invents a machine to kill that machine, and so on. We call this progress. An endless cycle of violence perpetu

First we invent a machine to kill, then someone invents a machine to kill that machine, and so on. We call this progress. An endless cycle of violence perpetuated by the pursuit of one group's security at the expense of another's. Is warfare a fact of life? Maybe. But to take actions which logically and demonstrably create the very insecurity they are meant to avoid is irrational. Point this out and you are branded an idealist. "Humanity is doomed to violence, so always be ready to kill" is apparently sage wisdom.

sirspacey 2y ago
Within a systemic lens, yes it is. As weaponry has gotten more deadly, conflicts have gotten less. There has never been an instance of stable human civilization (beyond small groups or extremely defensible/remote locations) that did not involve the ability to be violent. That ability is not durable. The skills required to ensure it does not become the purpose of a society is not durable. It takes craft, community, and hard work to cultivate the readiness for violence and restrain its application. It is fine for people to disavow violence. It is beneficial that they do. You will find in the military people who value pacifism more deeply than your average citizen. We do not have to believe or participate in something to be grateful for the people who do. One personal experience with violence and the value of the readiness to respond becomes apparent.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
riversflow 2y ago
Yes, that is sage wisdom. It is a fallacy to think that humans exist in any sort of harmony with nature. The law of nature is kill or be killed. I’m reminded of this each summer when wasps try to take my home from me.
anon291 2y ago
The issue with your take is that those who believe humanity is doomed to violence have hard scientific evidence on their side.
- bithive123 2y ago
  By inductive reasoning that's an understandable opinion; human beings have had wars somewhere every day for thousands of years. Is the conclusion that therefore violence is inevitable prescriptive as well? Where do we draw the line between accepting necessary violence (someone attacks you) and perpetuating the cycle (arms races)? Do the laws of physics somehow require humans to engage in violent conflicts? It seems evident to me that the root of these problems is in our thinking; when we engage in everyday behaviors and experience unexpected results, we easily recognize the error and take corrective action. For instance, if you take a wrong turn while driving. But when the same thing happens with violent conflicts, we seem to shrug our shoulders and say "nothing to learn here, it's just the human condition". Maybe the best we can do is individually not contribute to the various forms of violence. This requires a level of responsibility that is abdicated when we start with the conclusion that violence is mandatory. It's not very scientific to start with a conclusion.
  - anon291 2y ago
    > It seems evident to me that the root of these problems is in our thinking; when we engage in everyday behaviors and experience unexpected results, we easily recognize the error and take corrective action. For instance, if you take a wrong turn while driving. But when the same thing happens with violent conflicts, we seem to shrug our shoulders and say "nothing to learn here, it's just the human condition". I'm having trouble understanding here. Is your contention that the alternative to being a pacifist means giving up? To the contrary, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has resulted in a world safer than it's ever been
    - bithive123 2y ago
      We may not have a lot to discuss if your idea of safety is everyone having loaded guns pointed at each other. To me that is an extremely precarious position especially if we have accepted as wisdom that violence, maybe even preemptive violence, might be necessary. Is indefinite cold war really our highest aspiration? I'm trying to suggest that human beings engage in all sorts of destructive behaviors, including warfare, because of the way we think about the world. We compartmentalize violence, pollution, etc, advocate for the security of our nation-state at the expense of others, and ignore the "externalities", i.e. the simple fact that everything is connected. This tendency perpetuates the very cycles of conflict that most people feel like we could do without. And yet somehow it's easier to see that you've gone too far east and to go west instead, or vice versa. But for non-trivial matters it seems people want a fixed action pattern to which to cling ("never use force" or "be ready to shoot first") and get confused by comments such as mine which aren't advocating any fixed strategy because the fixed strategies are what got us in this mess.
gumby 2y ago
While it's all thermodynamic deadweight loss, if I have to choose between them I'd rather the machines were destroying just machines, not the humans.

sirspacey 2y ago

Within a systemic lens, yes it is. As weaponry has gotten more deadly, conflicts have gotten less. There has never been an instance of stable human civilization (beyond small groups or extremely defensible/remote locations) that did not involve the ability to be violent. That ability is not durable. The skills required to ensure it does not become the purpose of a society is not durable. It takes craft, community, and hard work to cultivate the readiness for violence and restrain its application. It is fine for people to disavow violence. It is beneficial that they do. You will find in the military people who value pacifism more deeply than your average citizen. We do not have to believe or participate in something to be grateful for the people who do. One personal experience with violence and the value of the readiness to respond becomes apparent.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

riversflow 2y ago

Yes, that is sage wisdom. It is a fallacy to think that humans exist in any sort of harmony with nature. The law of nature is kill or be killed. I’m reminded of this each summer when wasps try to take my home from me.

anon291 2y ago

The issue with your take is that those who believe humanity is doomed to violence have hard scientific evidence on their side.

bithive123 2y ago
By inductive reasoning that's an understandable opinion; human beings have had wars somewhere every day for thousands of years. Is the conclusion that therefore violence is inevitable prescriptive as well? Where do we draw the line between accepting necessary violence (someone attacks you) and perpetuating the cycle (arms races)? Do the laws of physics somehow require humans to engage in violent conflicts? It seems evident to me that the root of these problems is in our thinking; when we engage in everyday behaviors and experience unexpected results, we easily recognize the error and take corrective action. For instance, if you take a wrong turn while driving. But when the same thing happens with violent conflicts, we seem to shrug our shoulders and say "nothing to learn here, it's just the human condition". Maybe the best we can do is individually not contribute to the various forms of violence. This requires a level of responsibility that is abdicated when we start with the conclusion that violence is mandatory. It's not very scientific to start with a conclusion.
- anon291 2y ago
  > It seems evident to me that the root of these problems is in our thinking; when we engage in everyday behaviors and experience unexpected results, we easily recognize the error and take corrective action. For instance, if you take a wrong turn while driving. But when the same thing happens with violent conflicts, we seem to shrug our shoulders and say "nothing to learn here, it's just the human condition". I'm having trouble understanding here. Is your contention that the alternative to being a pacifist means giving up? To the contrary, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has resulted in a world safer than it's ever been
  - bithive123 2y ago
    We may not have a lot to discuss if your idea of safety is everyone having loaded guns pointed at each other. To me that is an extremely precarious position especially if we have accepted as wisdom that violence, maybe even preemptive violence, might be necessary. Is indefinite cold war really our highest aspiration? I'm trying to suggest that human beings engage in all sorts of destructive behaviors, including warfare, because of the way we think about the world. We compartmentalize violence, pollution, etc, advocate for the security of our nation-state at the expense of others, and ignore the "externalities", i.e. the simple fact that everything is connected. This tendency perpetuates the very cycles of conflict that most people feel like we could do without. And yet somehow it's easier to see that you've gone too far east and to go west instead, or vice versa. But for non-trivial matters it seems people want a fixed action pattern to which to cling ("never use force" or "be ready to shoot first") and get confused by comments such as mine which aren't advocating any fixed strategy because the fixed strategies are what got us in this mess.

gumby 2y ago

While it's all thermodynamic deadweight loss, if I have to choose between them I'd rather the machines were destroying just machines, not the humans.